PDA

View Full Version : Impeach Bush?


Kwyjibo
Jul 18, 2003, 12:50 AM
One senator says it possible because of the claims that were made about the uranium and the alleged "false pretenses for war"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&u=/nm/20030717/ts_nm/iraq_bush_graham_dc_2&printer=1


this is a very interestign theory I mean all parties aside, if the pretesens were false, leading a country to war is more detrimental to the country than Clinton's indisgression

macfan
Jul 18, 2003, 10:06 AM
LOL. The Florida Senator is just trying to get traction for his off track presidentail campaign, and he's making a fool of himself.

sturm375
Jul 18, 2003, 10:48 AM
There are many reasons we could impeach Pres. Bush, but the most important reason we won't, is because he is popular. For all the rhetoric about this being a land where "Rule of Law" prevails, it really doesn't. If you are rich enough, and/or you are popular enough, you can get away with murder or war or unlawful imprisonment.

patrick0brien
Jul 18, 2003, 10:50 AM
...or making bad software and foisting it on the public because you have a monopoly...

patrick0brien
Jul 18, 2003, 11:14 AM
-Kwyjibo

I doubt that anyone would really be able to impeach Bush with what was said any more effectively than Clinton was. Yes, I realize that Clinton was actually impeached, but that's as far as he got.

He was able to survive because the case was based on Clinton telling an out-and-out bald faced lie, when what he actually did was tell a half-truth. The wiggle room he provided himself was the use of the words "Sexual relations". You can drive a truch through the definition of that. Therefore, it couldn't be proven unequivocably that he Lied.

Bush did a similar thing in the state of the union with the line "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

There it is, the 16 words that lead to all of these hot debates. But this again, is not an out-and-out lie, it's a half-truth at it's worst.

This doesn't make Bush innocent any more than Clinton, but they're playing semantics, and they can get away with it.

At the end of the day when all of this talk is boiled down, this is not a political thing - it's a legal one. And these two men played that game well.

Sayhey
Jul 18, 2003, 12:48 PM
As much as I'd like to see Bush out, this is going nowhere. I'd have to agree that the statement by Graham has more to do with his own campaign than a serious call for impeachment. Unlike Clinton, Bush has both houses of Congress in the hands of his party and the Congressional leaders won't let this get to stage one. I also think that if any political lessons were learned during the debacle of the last impeachment it would be that the American people don't like their leaders put on trial. Clinton's poll numbers went up during the last mess. I think it is better to try and show the costs of Bush's policies and work to get him out in 2004. The Senator did get his name mentioned at the top of each newscast, so I think he accomplished what he set out to do.

mactastic
Jul 18, 2003, 01:37 PM
Bush won't be impeached unless things get ALOT worse for him. The Republicans have the House of Reps. sown up pretty tight right now, nothing gets through without the nod from Dennis Hastert and Tom Delay. Those two in particular are likely to be as zealous in their defense of Bush as they were vociferous in their attacks on Clinton.

IJ Reilly
Jul 18, 2003, 04:57 PM
I agree with those who've said that impeachment talk is a waste of time and energy. That being said, we don't know, and probably will never know, what a "Fourth Branch of Government" (the Investigative) would discover if they had the power subpoena everyone and everything in sight, in pursuit of whatever caught their fancy, and for as long as their curiosity held out (money being no object). I somehow doubt that the Bush administration would hold up any better under that level of scrutiny then the Clinton administration did.

Macpoops
Jul 18, 2003, 05:34 PM
Things aren't gonna change so deal with it. Republicans are in power, bush is a republican. They only reason they are making a big deal about it is to make waves before the election in 2004. The reason Clinton wasn't removed from office was the fact that he did nothing legally wrong with regards to his power and position. Immoral, yes but he's only guilty of denying it and that wasn't why they impeached him.

Bush did nothing wrong. Every government in the world has been doing things like this for years. The US is not any different. It's strictly spin doctoring to gain public opinion. Such is life, it's time people began to realize this

Backtothemac
Jul 18, 2003, 06:55 PM
That is not a high crime. To say that the British have learned something. The evidence in question is not all of the evident that exists to the subject. Britian still stands by their intel.

:rolleyes:

sturm375
Jul 18, 2003, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Macpoops
Things aren't gonna change so deal with it. Republicans are in power, bush is a republican. They only reason they are making a big deal about it is to make waves before the election in 2004. The reason Clinton wasn't removed from office was the fact that he did nothing legally wrong with regards to his power and position. Immoral, yes but he's only guilty of denying it and that wasn't why they impeached him.

Bush did nothing wrong. Every government in the world has been doing things like this for years. The US is not any different. It's strictly spin doctoring to gain public opinion. Such is life, it's time people began to realize this

No! The reason I want Bush investigated, is because I believe he has broken his Oath of Office (To uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America). He is responsible for the unconstitutional imprisonment of American Citizens, without trial, or council. There is damn good Moral, and Legal reasons to impeach him. It won't happen because he is popular.

There goes the "Rule of Law".

pivo6
Jul 18, 2003, 07:03 PM
I'm certainly not the biggest GWB fan, but I have to agree with everyone here that going forward with an impeachment would be a terrible waste of time, energy and resources. With both house under Republican control, it's a moot point anyway. Graham is just throwing out sound bites to see if there is any support for him.

Kwyjibo
Jul 18, 2003, 10:50 PM
I'm not saying that this is going to happen especially with the way congress is. I'm trying to say in a different time, if we went by the standard by which clinton was held, Bush should be in more trouble. 10 years down the line I think if you looked at both cases (clinton lies or bush lie) the bush lie would seem more serious. I also agree that graham is blowing steam, but as a democrat he should be ... he should be atleast raising the question of the standard despire popularity.

I just thought it was an interesting read, I mean its not like i'm throwing this out there as an immediate possiblity or a rant about how i hate Bush but as a news item that perhaps should be exmained by all angles

CubaMark
Jul 18, 2003, 11:38 PM
So Clinton got a blow job from an intern and ends up being impeached.

Bush lies about the war, puts tens of thousands of U.S. troops in harm's way (how many have died now?), a national infrastructure (admittedly ruled by a tyrant) was destroyed, and Iraqis are suffering and dying from diseases arising from raw sewage contaminating their water supplies, hospitals without supplies, oh-and a few gazillion errant cluster bombs laying around for kids to play with ('til they blow their little heads off).

Nah, Bush won't be impeached for THAT.

It's not the American Way, now is it?

CM

Macpoops
Jul 18, 2003, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by sturm375
No! The reason I want Bush investigated, is because I believe he has broken his Oath of Office (To uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America). He is responsible for the unconstitutional imprisonment of American Citizens, without trial, or council. There is damn good Moral, and Legal reasons to impeach him. It won't happen because he is popular.

There goes the "Rule of Law".

Funny how they didn't Impeach FDR for doing the same thing...That was a different time i know and repercussions have been paid...Doesn't change the fact that he did the exact same thing. Wait....Isn't FDR one of our greatest presidents?????

Remember the Homeland Security Act that is the thing that violates the constitutional rights of citizens not GWB don't shoot the messanger it takes 2 branches to make the law. So why don't we impeach all of congress while we're at it....

Backtothemac
Jul 18, 2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by CubaMark
So Clinton got a blow job from an intern and ends up being impeached.

Bush lies about the war, puts tens of thousands of U.S. troops in harm's way (how many have died now?), a national infrastructure (admittedly ruled by a tyrant) was destroyed, and Iraqis are suffering and dying from diseases arising from raw sewage contaminating their water supplies, hospitals without supplies, oh-and a few gazillion errant cluster bombs laying around for kids to play with ('til they blow their little heads off).

Nah, Bush won't be impeached for THAT.

It's not the American Way, now is it?

CM
First off, there was a lot more to Clinton's impeachment than that :rolleyes:
Second. Bush did not lie about the war. British intel had told the US government the statement that he made. That is fact. The brits still stand by it. Lets see about 185 troops have died. The infrastructure of Iraq was already destroyed. The problems of raw sewage existed before the war, especially in Bashra. Hospitals are without supplies because of the ineffective sanctions of that wonderful administration in the 90's and Mrs. Albright.

As for the American way. Would you have impeached Truman for dropping the bomb?

pseudobrit
Jul 19, 2003, 12:03 AM
It's not going to happen unless much more damning evidence indicting Bush specifically (I personally believe his administration -- Rummy, Cheney, Perle, Wolfy, etc. -- are at fault for most things he's come under fire for) reaches the surface.

And people who have come forward with damning evidence have been having a streak of bad luck lately anyway.

And Clinton wouldn't have had nearly the problems he did if he'd gone to Congress to ask permission for oral sex first, even if he lied about it before and after.

patrick0brien
Jul 19, 2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
And Clinton wouldn't have had nearly the problems he did if he'd gone to Congress to ask permission for oral sex first, even if he lied about it before and after.

-Bwaaaah! :D :D

Oh the imagery of that petition!

Thanks pseudo, this thread needed that. :D

Sayhey
Jul 19, 2003, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
And Clinton wouldn't have had nearly the problems he did if he'd gone to Congress to ask permission for oral sex first, even if he lied about it before and after.

lol, haven't laughed that hard in months, thanks:D

macfan
Jul 19, 2003, 12:24 AM
LOL. Half the Congress probably would have demanded that he cut them in on the action!

pseudobrit
Jul 19, 2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by macfan
LOL. Half the Congress probably would have demanded that he cut them in on the action!

Whoa, that could be taken either way! :p :o

That image is disturbing, unless you're a Congressman, and then it's probably arousing.

sturm375
Jul 19, 2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Macpoops
Funny how they didn't Impeach FDR for doing the same thing...That was a different time i know and repercussions have been paid...Doesn't change the fact that he did the exact same thing. Wait....Isn't FDR one of our greatest presidents?????

Remember the Homeland Security Act that is the thing that violates the constitutional rights of citizens not GWB don't shoot the messanger it takes 2 branches to make the law. So why don't we impeach all of congress while we're at it....

It was wrong then, it's wrong now. The Supreme Court has repedetedly ruled that persons enturned like this are unconstitutional.

Don't get me started on Congress! Bush has a choice, all in his hands. He can either allow the Jose Padillia trial to continue, or continue to imprison him (among others) indefinatly without trial or councel. One way is constitutional, the other is not. This to me is not a gray area of the Constitution, as it expressly provides for these rights, and expressly forbids the government form removing these rights without due process.

As for the whole war issue. I am on the fence, but leaning toward "He lied" side considering his record.

mactastic
Jul 19, 2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
First off, there was a lot more to Clinton's impeachment than that :rolleyes:
Second. Bush did not lie about the war. British intel had told the US government the statement that he made. That is fact. The brits still stand by it. Lets see about 185 troops have died. The infrastructure of Iraq was already destroyed. The problems of raw sewage existed before the war, especially in Bashra. Hospitals are without supplies because of the ineffective sanctions of that wonderful administration in the 90's and Mrs. Albright.

As for the American way. Would you have impeached Truman for dropping the bomb?

It was also reported, and accepted as fact, that Clinton "did not have sexual relations with that woman... Miss Lewinsky" until the dress surfaced. So before you get too sure about what Bush did and did not know, lets let the story come out. What happens to Bush's position if the British change their tune? Wouldn't that be the same as finding a DNA-laced dress?

And yes, if Truman had had to face the rabid media of today, there certainly would have been an investigation into whether he really needed to drop something like that on a populated city, rather than giving a demonstration of its power somewhere else first, giving the Japanese government the chance to do the right thing before we began wiping out their cities. Would it have resulted in impeachment? I don't know

macfan
Jul 19, 2003, 10:55 AM
There's no way that Truman would have been impeached for fighting a war against Japan that included using the bomb to end it, nor should he have been impeached.

He said that his decision to bomb Japan was easier for him than his decision to back South Korea against the North.

stum375,
It is a gray area of the consititution. If it were not, the courts would have taken action on it already and Padilla would either be cut loose or tried. Fact is, the models for war and for dealing with legal ramifications of what to do with those captured have changed. That's going to take some time to shake out.

mactastic
Jul 19, 2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by macfan
There's no way that Truman would have been impeached for fighting a war against Japan that included using the bomb to end it, nor should he have been impeached.

He said that his decision to bomb Japan was easier for him than his decision to back South Korea against the North.

stum375,
It is a gray area of the consititution. If it were not, the courts would have taken action on it already and Padilla would either be cut loose or tried. Fact is, the models for war and for dealing with legal ramifications of what to do with those captured have changed. That's going to take some time to shake out.

I'm sure gettin a BJ was one of the easier decisions Clinton made, but that doesn't mean it was right. I don't think Truman should have been impeached for using the Abomb, but then again I didn't think Clinton should have been impeached for lying about a non-crime. That doesn't mean it didn't happen though.

IJ Reilly
Jul 19, 2003, 12:21 PM
People seem to forget that we hold "impeachments" and "recalls" every two, four or six years, depending on the office. Except in the most extreme cases of malfeasance in office, advocates for either are simply members of the opposition party attempting to accomplish by fiat that which they could not accomplish at the ballot box. We could go a long way towards better government if the electorate would express displeasure with the parties when they engage in this sort of activity, instead of proposing a better way to govern.

mcrain
Jul 19, 2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Except in the most extreme cases of malfeasance in office, advocates for either are simply members of the opposition party attempting to accomplish by fiat that which they could not accomplish at the ballot box.

That's a nice way of saying that impeaching a president merely because you don't like him is tantamount to treason (overthrowing the government).

Backtothemac
Jul 19, 2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
That's a nice way of saying that impeaching a president merely because you don't like him is tantamount to treason (overthrowing the government).

Would it not be? Tantamount that is?

patrick0brien
Jul 19, 2003, 02:07 PM
[EDIT: CONTENT REMOVED] What I originally said would waste all of your time. :D

IJ Reilly
Jul 19, 2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
That's a nice way of saying that impeaching a president merely because you don't like him is tantamount to treason (overthrowing the government).

I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that it's irresponsible behavior on the part of an elected official to pursue power instead of public benefit.

mcrain
Jul 19, 2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that it's irresponsible behavior on the part of an elected official to pursue power instead of public benefit.

Well, it's clearly not treason as defined by the constitution, but it does fit the more common, non-legal definition of treason being conduct designed to overthrow a government.

bobindashadows
Jul 19, 2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Well, it's clearly not treason as defined by the constitution, but it does fit the more common, non-legal definition of treason being conduct designed to overthrow a government.
Either way, it's nothing to be proud of. That's why they never admit they want to impeach him because they hate him.

mcrain
Jul 19, 2003, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
Either way, it's nothing to be proud of. That's why they never admit they want to impeach him because they hate him.

As opposed to the Republicans who didn't just admit to wanting to impeach Clinton, they actually did it.

sturm375
Jul 19, 2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by macfan
There's no way that Truman would have been impeached for fighting a war against Japan that included using the bomb to end it, nor should he have been impeached.

He said that his decision to bomb Japan was easier for him than his decision to back South Korea against the North.

stum375,
It is a gray area of the consititution. If it were not, the courts would have taken action on it already and Padilla would either be cut loose or tried. Fact is, the models for war and for dealing with legal ramifications of what to do with those captured have changed. That's going to take some time to shake out.

The courts have ordered the Feds to provide councel, and bring him to court. Problem is, he is being held in a military brig (Jose being a civilian, this is also illegal), and the courts can't get to him.

BTW, the Feds continue to snub the court, use delay tactics, and other non-sense.

bobindashadows
Jul 19, 2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
As opposed to the Republicans who didn't just admit to wanting to impeach Clinton, they actually did it.
Hey - Clinton committed perjury. Do I think he should've been thrown out of office for lying about sex? No. He was in too important of a position to put the country through a president change, even though everything was running just fine. But he did deserve to be impeached. He committed perjury. There is no way around that. Should his record have been left clean? No!

Now, as for Bush. What the people who hate Bush and want him impeached refuse to acknowledge is that both governments have stated that they have corroborating evidence! Also, for those who love making these little tables:

Clinton's lie about sex: 0 lives lost - Impeached

Bush's lie about uranium: 20-30,000 lives lost - no retribution

[ Admin: Borderline comment for banning. Don't do it again. Be nice, or don't participate. ]

Original comment similar to:
"You. Are. A. Sillyhead."

Bush did not intend, nor did he imply in any way, that war was justified solely by british intelligence reports that Saddam had attempted to gain uranium from Africa. As I said above, both governments are standing behind the reports and saying they have corroborating evidence. Take that with a grain of salt - but despite how much you despise President Bush, he hasn't lied. A person cannot be impeached, or even called a liar, until you prove they have lied. Actually, you can call him a liar, especially if you post at http://www.sucks500.com/ . Or if you hate him. Call him whatever you want. He hasn't lied until you show that he knew the report was forged and decided to include it anyway.

What many of you refuse to recognize is that the President is often not the most informed person in an administration. That's why they have lots of advisors - how do you expect one person to handle every bit of information about the sole superpower in the world? An efficient president doesn't try to manage every single event and every bit of information in his nation. He gets the big picture, get's the opinions of his advisors, and takes action. He has speechwriters who work with said advisors to put together speeches. Many here feel they could do a much better job as president than President Bush. But they don't understand that they probably wouldn't have heard about the forged reports either. Somebody needs to lose their job in the White House, the person who force the sixteen words into the speech, who Tenet fingered in his hearing. Not President Bush.

Yeah, I got out of line. Sorry about that.

DakotaGuy
Jul 20, 2003, 12:34 PM
Let me see here, you impeach Bush and then you get Cheney? I can't stand GW, but we are better off then having the real "terminator" in the hot seat.

Sayhey
Jul 20, 2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Let me see here, you impeach Bush and then you get Cheney? I can't stand GW, but we are better off then having the real "terminator" in the hot seat.

You know back in the old days (boy, don't I sound ancient) they used to say Spiro Agnew was Nixon's best insurance against impeachment. Same here? Except Spiro didn't run the government behind the scenes. Cheney maybe telling the "frat boy" what to do. Those Saturday Night Live routines strike too close to home.

mcrain
Jul 20, 2003, 01:37 PM
I may be a sillyhead, but I'm going to vote for regime change in 2004!